Self Help, Nietzsche, and the Patriarchy
Tuesday, April 10, 2018 -- 11:17 AM
Mohit Mookim

How did self-help go so wrong? Philosophy Talk featured contributor David Livingstone Smith explains the atrocious politics of popular self-help guru Jordan Peterson.

If you thought self-help was supposed to stay outside the hustle-bustle of politics, you might want to take a look at this article (co-authored by John Kaag). This beautiful piece describes the links between the toxic ideas embedded (sometimes not so subtly) in Jordan Peterson's shtick.

As the title of this post suggests, Nietzsche's ideas about will to power make an appearance, alongside toxic masculinity.

Check out the article here: http://foreignpolicy.com/2018/04/04/god-is-ted-jordan-peterson-self-help-men/

Comments (4)


Harold G. Neuman's picture

Harold G. Neuman

Tuesday, April 10, 2018 -- 12:36 PM

I had not heard of Peterson.

I had not heard of Peterson. It is probably just as well. He sounds like a cross between Marjoe Gortner and the worst of the worst tyrants and despots one might think of. The closeted comparison to Hitler sounds pretty spot-on as well. Every few decades, someone like this emerges and some naive individuals think they have found salvation; reached nirvana; and found bliss beneath the bodhi tree. I have never bought any of this. Everyone needs to make a buck here and there and it sounds as if Mr. Peterson has found a money mine. For now. Don't get me totally wrong, though. There are things I do not agree with when it comes to modernity. But I also have a pretty good 'spider sense' when it comes to charlatans and phonies. This guy smells like rotting fish. 'nough said.

pchandler@ies-engr.com's picture

pchandler@ies-e...

Tuesday, April 10, 2018 -- 1:45 PM

"How did self-help go so

"How did self-help go so wrong? Philosophy Talk featured contributor David Livingstone Smith explains the atrocious politics of popular self-help guru Jordan Peterson and the links between the toxic ideas embedded in Peterson's shtick."

Go wrong? Atrocious? Toxic? Shtick? How about we discuss the issue without the pejorative language? Agree with him or no, this is not an intellectually honest manner in which to begin the discussion. Can we start over? Or is this piece strictly an op-ed?

momookim's picture

momookim

Tuesday, April 10, 2018 -- 5:07 PM

I wrote this blog post, and I

I wrote this blog post, and I agree that I'm not trying to occupy a neutral standpoint in this post. We're not a journalist organization, but thinking of this post as closer to op-ed would be fair. I usually try to be more balanced in writing blog posts, but in this case, you're right, I let my strong feelings about Peterson shine through. I'm okay with that. Of course, I don't represent the views of the Philosophy Talk Radio Show or any of its sponsors—I only represent myself.

Harold G. Neuman's picture

Harold G. Neuman

Friday, April 13, 2018 -- 11:39 AM

OOPS? No, not really.

OOPS? No, not really. Obscurantism is only dangerous when it attempts to mask insidiousness All speech is free, until someone's sense of freedom is maligned.